f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
My mental model of wine (as a wine troglodyte)
Is that the quality of wine (or anything of subjective taste) is logarithmically related to the price. With some large error bars that handwave at personal preference. And the quality is proportional to price not because you get what you pay for, but you don't get what you don't pay for.
Anyways, the above is obvious. What I'm finding surprising is that so many people here are defending blatant status signaling as anything but. To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
I'm also deeply annoyed at the notion some people have that complexity (number of differentiable details) = quality. If you mix cheap but different wines, you probably get a new wine that is at most twice as complex, perhaps even more complex than a much more expensive wine. And a professional sommelier might even be able to parse that complexity, does that lead to the conclusion its better?
But I suppose status signaling isn't really effective if the signal is not modulated. The subtler the signal the better?
Yeah Yeah "I know who is the better painter in the set {Monet, A 3 year old}.
I just don't think there is enough bandwidth (and error bars small enough and instruments accurate enough) in most matters of taste to really conclude that one preference suggests you are more high-falutin than the other. Literature might be the exception not the rule.
I default to vacuous status signaling until proven otherwise when I come across arguments of this form.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
f3zinker 1yr ago
To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
Speaking for bourbon rather than wine, but I don't need to get 10x the satisfaction for it to be worth it - I can only drink so much bourbon and having a few of those pours be expensive is worthwhile to me. Even at a $200 bottle (which is a price I haven't paid yet), I'd be looking at roughly 16 1.5 oz pours, which makes them about $12.50 per pour. If we're thinking wine bottles, we're talking about $40/glass. Both of those are expensive! But they're also well within the range of prices that normal, upper-middle class people can swing without changing anything about their lives otherwise, at least when we're talking about the occasional treat.
Put another way, there's no meaningful tradeoff that I'm making. The marginal dollars that I spend on nice bourbon would otherwise add nothing to my life. I can easily imagine this calculus shifting much, much farther if I made a lot more money.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My mental model of wine (as a wine troglodyte)
Is that the quality of wine (or anything of subjective taste) is logarithmically related to the price. With some large error bars that handwave at personal preference. And the quality is proportional to price not because you get what you pay for, but you don't get what you don't pay for.
Anyways, the above is obvious. What I'm finding surprising is that so many people here are defending blatant status signaling as anything but. To those of you getting mad at the notion that someone might not see the appeal of 200 USD wine, do you really derive 10x the satisfaction than a 20 USD wine? If yes, is that satisfaction in your taste buds or knowing that you can spend 200 USD on fermented grapes?
I'm also deeply annoyed at the notion some people have that complexity (number of differentiable details) = quality. If you mix cheap but different wines, you probably get a new wine that is at most twice as complex, perhaps even more complex than a much more expensive wine. And a professional sommelier might even be able to parse that complexity, does that lead to the conclusion its better?
But I suppose status signaling isn't really effective if the signal is not modulated. The subtler the signal the better?
Yeah Yeah "I know who is the better painter in the set {Monet, A 3 year old}.
As is the argument @FiveHourMarathon is making.
I just don't think there is enough bandwidth (and error bars small enough and instruments accurate enough) in most matters of taste to really conclude that one preference suggests you are more high-falutin than the other. Literature might be the exception not the rule.
I default to vacuous status signaling until proven otherwise when I come across arguments of this form.
Speaking for bourbon rather than wine, but I don't need to get 10x the satisfaction for it to be worth it - I can only drink so much bourbon and having a few of those pours be expensive is worthwhile to me. Even at a $200 bottle (which is a price I haven't paid yet), I'd be looking at roughly 16 1.5 oz pours, which makes them about $12.50 per pour. If we're thinking wine bottles, we're talking about $40/glass. Both of those are expensive! But they're also well within the range of prices that normal, upper-middle class people can swing without changing anything about their lives otherwise, at least when we're talking about the occasional treat.
Put another way, there's no meaningful tradeoff that I'm making. The marginal dollars that I spend on nice bourbon would otherwise add nothing to my life. I can easily imagine this calculus shifting much, much farther if I made a lot more money.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link